Act Locally » October 4, 2006

Starbucks Gets Wobbly

When Joe Tessone and his fellow Starbucks baristas walked into a pep rally with management at their store in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood in August, the bosses were ready.

A trio of higher-ups passed around copies of the preamble to the constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World and warned the hourlies against the radicalism of the old anarchist-socialist One Big Union.

The managers told the “partners”–the company’s sobriquet for a workforce that baristas say is entirely part-time–that the CEO and chairman carry the same benefits package as the baristas.

That argument didn’t hold much water for Tessone. “It’s the illusion of equality,” he says. “Do they struggle to pay rent at the end of the month? Do they struggle to buy groceries at the end of the week?”

Sick of waiting for modest demands to be met, the baristas weren’t buying the packaged spiel. Instead, they announced they were joining the IWW, intent on returning some meaning to the National Labor Relation Act’s call for “mutual aid or protection.”

The nation’s 71-year-old foundational labor document applies to all workers, not only those who can arduously prove a majority of their colleagues want a union. The baristas don’t want an election with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or a certified bargaining unit. They’re using a tactic popular before the Depression, solidarity unionism, in which a minority of workers act in concert and issue demands even if management doesn’t recognize their union–which Starbucks does not.

But the Chicago baristas aren’t alone: Six New York City Starbucks have affiliated with the IWW in two years of campaigning, and the Wobblies take credit for three city-wide pay increases there. Already in Chicago, where the starting wage is usually $7.50 an hour, the baristas have won safety improvements and scheduling changes.

“We’re able to act quickly and we’re able to make decisions within our stores, and we don’t have to wait for court decisions,” Tessone says. “In the retail and service industry, there’s a high turnover rate. There’s just not time to wait. We have to organize ourselves and act on the job to get our demands met.”

Starbucks exacts a price for shop actions. Daniel Gross, an IWW Starbucks Union organizer, says four New York baristas have been fired in the past year for union activity, including himself in August. The company settled unfair labor practice charges with three workers in March, leading to about $2,000 in back pay and promises not to bribe or threaten baristas. Tessone says Starbucks is using one-on-one meetings to pressure his coworkers. Starbucks’ settlement admitted no guilt. A Starbucks spokesman told In These Times, “We firmly believe that our work environment, coupled with our outstanding compensation and benefits, make unions unnecessary at Starbucks. Starbucks takes very seriously its legal obligations and does not take action or retaliate against employees who express support for unions or take part in union activity.”

Aggressive anti-union tactics have become the norm in the United States, from no-holds-barred outlets like Wal-Mart to image-obsessed corporations like Whole Foods. Labor law is permissive of abuse, so much so that a landmark 2000 Human Rights Watch report found 24,000 workers fired for organizing in a year, just one symptom of what it called the “culture of near-impunity” governing management’s attacks on union efforts.

The Bush administration has helped tip the scales further against novel efforts like the Starbucks union. The NLRB ruled in 2004 that nonunion workers can no longer accompany each other into investigatory meetings with bosses. Commonly known as “Weingarten rights,” they have been extended to and stripped from nonunion workers four times in the last 30 years. Solidarity unions often invoke them to document management’s browbeating and witness disciplinary investigations.

Joel Rogers, a professor of law, political science and sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has examined flexible forms of organization, says workers and unions shouldn’t focus on the NLRB but on finding ways to defuse intense employer opposition. For example, unions might invite workers who want changes in their work place but who haven’t won (or have lost) formal union representation to join the union and become involved.

Another example retail workers can draw from is the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York (ROC-NY), which has won six campaigns in five years against restaurant conglomerates in the city through a combination of direct action and lawsuits. The group–which is friendly with the hospitality union UNITE-HERE–brings together restaurant workers, many of who are undocumented immigrants, to resolve concerns about working conditions as well as to file class-action lawsuits. The Center has secured more than $300,000 in back wages and discrimination complaints, brokered managerial agreements to respect wage, hour and benefit laws, and opened a collectively managed restaurant of its own.

“Before even thinking about unionization, the standards of the industry have to come up, so that it’s not acceptable anymore to discriminate or break the law,” says Saru Jayaraman, ROC-NY’s executive director. “If we want to see any kind of power built for workers in this industry in our lifetime, we have to think about alternative models.”

Old labor is starting to listen. In August, the AFL-CIO signed an agreement with the National Day Labor Organizing Network, signaling new intentions to partner with a group labor embraced only six years ago. Although the estimated 118,000 day laborers won’t join or pay dues, the worker centers marshalling increasing numbers of the laborers can access some services, like the AFL’s pro-bono labor lawyers.

Starbucks is a beatific symbolisation of capitalism. It’s every most marketing. It’s most taking, not giving. The creation is crap. I don’t understand why exactly, though I venture it’s meet the aforementioned older news of outlay cutting. They belike ingest affordable 70-294 dumps drink on crowning of affordable fag (growers and baristas). If, on crowning of that, they don’t understand what they’re doing with it, then you’re not feat to achieve a beatific product, because drink is already cushy to achieve wrong. It’s exclusive a emotional food. But pupil is it profitable! You meet have to clear the growers and baristas null and calculate the consumers 70-294 exam a phenomenon which you then pocket. Capitalists are vampires. They draw the chronicle discover of everything. It’s gotten to the saucer where we scarce understand what’s beatific anymore. That’s because we never wager it. (Although here in Canada, Second Cup does circularize decorous coffee. No, I don’t impact for Second Cup). The exclusive abstract capitalists equip in are schemes to tap profits, disregarding the outlay to others and to the excellence of the products and services they offer, not to name the environment 70-294 questions.Posted by ping123 on 2010-08-21 02:51:13

Starbucks is a good symbol of capitalism. It's all about marketing. It's about taking, not giving. The product is crap. I don't know why exactly, although I suspect it's just the same old story of cost cutting. They probably use cheap coffee on top of cheap labor (growers and baristas). If, on top of that, they don't know what they're doing with it, then you're not going to get a good product, because coffee is already easy to get wrong. It's simply a temperamental food. But boy is it profitable! You just have to pay the growers and baristas nothing and charge the consumers a fortune which you then pocket.
Capitalists are vampires. They suck the life out of everything. It's gotten to the point where we hardly know what's good anymore. That's because we never see it. (Although here in Canada, Second Cup does carry decent coffee. No, I don't work for Second Cup). The only thing capitalists invest in are schemes to maximize profits, regardless the cost to others and to the quality of the products and services they offer, not to mention the environment.
Capitalism has won. It's all we have. But that doesn't mean that it's affordable. It isn't.Posted by Arby on 2006-10-10 00:36:43

Very interesting article.
It is about time that trade unions everywhere understood that the war waged against trade unions and the post war 'settlement' in the West is never going to go away, and that the rules have changed.
Solidarity unionism is nothing more than unionism, period. The fostering of acts of social solidarity in the workplace, and linking them with solidarity actions elsewhere, will do more to build a new, relevant and sustainable labour movement than a ton of windy manifestos and tinkering with structrures. Reclaiming the discourse and practice of human rights and democracy, at work and in the wider society will have explosive consequences for an elite that apparently never knows when enough is enough.Posted by Jane Doe on 2006-10-05 17:25:00

Hi Mischa. Nice article and I don't want to be picky, but my point was not so much to DEFUSE employer resistance as to ELIMINATE it as a determinant of union membership.
It's the employer's right to fight with a union over the terms of an employment contract. It's not the employer's right (though of course they do so all the time) to determine what organization an employee may join to represent them in dealings with employers. As Franklin Roosevelt put it around the time the NLRA was passed: "workers ought to be free to choose any representative they want, whether it be an individual, a union, the Royal Geographic Society, or the Akhond of Swat."
Of course, to give this reasonable assumption real life requires that unions, not just the Royal Geographic Society, be willing to accept workers as members, irrespective of their majority status. But as you point out in your article, the good news is that more and more unions, and now even labor federations, are doing just that. This is an important and very welcome break from postwar union practice.Posted by Joel Rogers on 2006-10-05 11:24:31